NICANOR. B. PAGKALINAWAN vs. HON.

AMADOR
E. GOMEZ

FACTS:
Respondent Norberto L. Dayrit filed a complaint for
Replevin in the Court of First Instance of Cebu
presided by respondent Judge Gomez, against
petitioner, Nicanor Pagkalinawan, Supervising Agent,
National Bureau of Investigation, Cebu City, and two
members of the Manila Police Department for the
recovery of possession of the aforementioned car
alleging that it is wrongfully detained by the herein
petitioner. The respondent Judge issued an order
directing the Sheriff of Cebu City or any proper officer
of the court, to take the car into his custody and the
order was implemented by the Clerk of Court by
issuing on the same date a writ of replevin.
The petitioner contend that he could not possibly
comply with said order to deliver the aforementioned
car to the sheriff because he was holding the same in
'custodia legis' for the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the court that issued the search warrant under
which the said car was seized and held in custody; . .
The respondent Judge issued an order directing the
petitioner to immediately comply with the order of the
court and to turn over to the sheriff the car in question
upon receipt of a copy of this order.
Petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration
of the order and setting aside the writ of replevin, but
respondent Judge after hearing on said motion denied
the same in its order.
It was then alleged by petitioner that the aforesaid
orders issued by the respondent Judge were made
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion; that said orders would likewise
"nullify the purpose and defeat the force and validity
of the search warrant issued by the Court of First
Instance, a competent court of equal category;" and
"would then cause confusion in the enforcement and
implementation of lawful orders issued by other courts
thereby causing embarrassment in the proper
administration of justice.
The prayer was for respondent Judge being declared as
having acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion in thus proceeding in the

replevin action and that pending the final hearing and

determination of this petition, an order of preliminary
mandatory injunction be issued directing the respondent
Judge to order the return of said car to petitioner,
desisting and refraining until further orders of this Court
from acting on the matter.

ISSUE:
W/N respondent Judge act in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion in granting the replevin
action.
RULING:
Petitioner is entitled to the remedy of preliminary
mandatory injunction prayed for; the writ must be
granted. It would be to ignore a principle to which this
Court has been firmly committed if under the
circumstances disclosed, respondent Judge would be
sustained.
It is settled that the jurisdiction to annul a judgment of
a branch of the Court of First Instance
belongs solely to the very same branch which
rendered the judgment." As aptly stated, any other
branch "even it be in the same judicial district" that
would attempt to do so "either excess its
jurisdiction",9 or "acts with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction
The moment a court of first instance has been
informed through the filing of an appropriate pleading
that a search warrant has been issued by another
court of first instance, it cannot, even if the literal
language of the Rules of Court7 yield a contrary
impression which in this case demonstrated the good
faith of respondent Judge for acting as he did, require
a sheriff or any proper officer of the Court to take the
property subject of the replevin action if theretofore it
came into the custody of another public officer by
virtue of a search warrant. Only the court of first
instance that issued such a search warrant may order
its release. Any other view would be subversive of a
doctrine that has been steadfastly adhered to, the
main purpose of which is to assure stability and
consistency in judicial actuations and to avoid
confusion that may otherwise ensue if courts of
coordinate jurisdiction are permitted to interfere with
each other's lawful orders.

The writ prayed for is granted, and the mandatory

preliminary injunction issued made permanent. With
costs against respondent Dayrit.